• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Should convicted locked up terrorists have the right to vote?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
25,792
5,437
136
Maybe I'm talking to a bunch of ex-felons.

I mean, if Trump goes to jail do you want him voting? I sure don't.
Every American should be able to vote no matter where or who they are. It's the first rule. No exceptions.
 

fleshconsumed

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2002
5,859
1,143
126
Maybe I'm talking to a bunch of ex-felons.

I mean, if Trump goes to jail do you want him voting? I sure don't.
As despicable as Trump is, no, I don't mind him voting from prison. His one vote is not going to make a difference.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
34,049
7,136
136
Just saying 'hey, I know you broke a bunch of laws, but what the hell, this one politician says he'll forgive all your sins and let you out if you vote for him' sounds like a pretty plausible scenario.
Avoids the larger question of who we are putting in prison and why with fear mongering.
 

mect

Golden Member
Jan 5, 2004
1,959
839
136
Like the death penalty, I'm fine with removing voting rights of felons in theory. However, because the application is so messed up, in application I'm opposed to both. In its current state, our legal system is terrible at fair application of its laws. As such, these types of laws can be used as weapons to suppress votes. Using the marijuana example cited earlier, blacks and whites use marijuana at similar rates, and yet far more blacks are in prison for it compared to whites. Taking away voting rights for felons just leads to political parties targeting opponent populations with bullshit convictions. We need to remove all political motivations for arresting people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
69,036
17,184
136
If it was a significant law, then the punishment should also be significant. I don't care if a guy who raped a three year old thinks should be mayor, apparently you think your opinion is worth the same as that person's.
You're not very intelligent, dishonest, and almost entirely irrational. I don't care who you think should be mayor either but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have the right to vote. I think that once people start passing judgment on whose opinion should count for voting that invariably becomes 'people who agree with me'. That's what happened with literacy tests, poll taxes, property requirements, etc.

Better to have a rule that if you're a citizen you can vote, period.

Trump condemns Nazis and the like, has not once sided with them, I posted earlier in another thread how tonight I will be happy to see the execution carried out of a guy that dragged a black man behind his car until dead. I am in no way a Nazi sympathizer, you're just showing your emotion and lack of logic again.
Of course he has and I have no interest in re-litigating it because it's obvious to any remotely objective person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
69,036
17,184
136
Well that's corruption...that is not the same thing and a whole different issue. If the 'corrupt' were held to the same standards as the rest of us, there'd be less corruption. They want to be corrupt and get caught? They get the same treatment - it's pretty much a no brainer. Instead everyone 'shurks responsibility' and protect their own.

Just saying 'hey, I know you broke a bunch of laws, but what the hell, this one politician says he'll forgive all your sins and let you out if you vote for him' sounds like a pretty plausible scenario.
First, that would be a crime to say they would let anyone out who would vote for them. Any such policy would have to be some sort of blanket amnesty for prisoners and frankly our criminal justice system is WAY too harsh as it is so as a broad idea I think it's great!

Regardless of that though, do you really think a politician would win on that platform? Really?
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,794
824
126
First, that would be a crime to say they would let anyone out who would vote for them. Any such policy would have to be some sort of blanket amnesty for prisoners and frankly our criminal justice system is WAY too harsh as it is so as a broad idea I think it's great!

Regardless of that though, do you really think a politician would win on that platform? Really?
Oh come on, I know you are smarter than this. Of course what I stated isn't how this would be accomplished, but it would happen.

Don't get me wrong, I know our justice system is broken, but for the most part it works. It needs fixes, but this isn't one of them. This is a play at manipulating voters once again. The surprising thing is that it is coming from the left rather than the right.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
69,036
17,184
136
Oh come on, I know you are smarter than this. Of course what I stated isn't how this would be accomplished, but it would happen.

Don't get me wrong, I know our justice system is broken, but for the most part it works. It needs fixes, but this isn't one of them. This is a play at manipulating voters once again. The surprising thing is that it is coming from the left rather than the right.
Why is the idea that people don't lose their right to vote when in prison some sort of 'manipulation of the vote'? Plenty of other democracies allow voting by those in prison, are they manipulating their vote too? If you move up to Canada you can vote from prison just fine, for example. is that a leftist plot?

Every citizen should have a right to say who is in charge. That's what being a citizen is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,081
509
126
In their ever increasing in speed push left of common sense, at least one leading leftist politician is claiming that even convicted terrorists in prison should be allowed to vote. I could be open to this for certain crimes, but for the most part I'm fine with the right to vote being suspended or removed for felons and those convicted of other significant crimes. Once debt to society is paid and the person shows that they are rehabilitated and will, within reason, live within the laws and regulations of society I am fine with that person having the right to vote. But I do not think the Boston Marathon bomber's voice should have any meaning when selecting our elected officials.

https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2019/04/23/bernie-sanders-vote-marathon-bomber/

https://www.theepochtimes.com/bernie-sanders-says-convicted-terrorists-and-sex-offenders-should-be-allowed-to-vote_2890884.html
If your citizenship isn't revoked when you commit a crime, your right to vote for your representation shouldn't either.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,794
824
126
Why is the idea that people don't lose their right to vote when in prison some sort of 'manipulation of the vote'? Plenty of other democracies allow voting by those in prison, are they manipulating their vote too? If you move up to Canada you can vote from prison just fine, for example. is that a leftist plot?

Every citizen should have a right to say who is in charge. That's what being a citizen is.
Because the only reason it is coming up is due to the current political climate and someone trying to get more votes.

My opinion (yes, just my opinion) is that if you can't follow the law, you shouldn't be allowed to decide the law. There are many caveats to that one statement that we could dive into but we don't need to. The majority of criminals are there because they broke the law. Whether or not they deserve to be felons was already decided. How we came to that conclusion and what we deem felonies is what should be addressed.

Locking them in a cage is okay, but not allowing them to vote is somehow inhumane? No. A certain quality of life expected by the incarcerated is one thing but voting doesn't impact their ability to live. Now, when do they get those rights back once released? Okay, that there is room for discussion on.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
69,036
17,184
136
Because the only reason it is coming up is due to the current political climate and someone trying to get more votes.
But isn’t your perceived motivation irrelevant? It’s either right or it’s not.

My opinion (yes, just my opinion) is that if you can't follow the law, you shouldn't be allowed to decide the law. There are many caveats to that one statement that we could dive into but we don't need to. The majority of criminals are there because they broke the law. Whether or not they deserve to be felons was already decided. How we came to that conclusion and what we deem felonies is what should be addressed.
Have you considered that who has the right to vote and what is considered a crime might be related? For example do you think if the electorate were more heavily African American that crack would have sentences ten times as harsh as regular cocaine? I sure don’t.

Laws are inherently political and the idea that the majority can make laws that can reduce the voting power of the minority through the criminal code is antithetical to democracy.

Locking them in a cage is okay, but not allowing them to vote is somehow inhumane? No. A certain quality of life expected by the incarcerated is one thing but voting doesn't impact their ability to live.
Who said anything about it being inhumane? It is a simple factor that every citizen should have the right to vote. No citizen should have more say in who our leaders are than any other. That’s what democracy is all about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

1sikbITCH

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2001
4,194
573
126
Sure they should. When you commit a crime and are convicted, you forfeit your rights. This is why they are imprisoned and no longer have the freedom to travel, as another example of a right forfeited. Likewise someone should show that they posses a base level ability to function within the laws of society to vote.

Just so I'm clear on this, you guys want convicted white nationalist Nazi types, in prison for hate crimes, to have the right to vote?
Hell yes let them all vote there are 3 million or so blacks and hispanics in prison and like 25 white guys. It'll work out just fine.

Jokes aside, rich people pay to stay out of jail, and they get to keep on voting. Poor people go to jail. Not letting them vote keeps the elite in power and their boot on our throats.
Most people in prison are there not because they broke the law but because they didn't have enough money or clout to buy their way out. The laws are corrupt, the cops are corrupt, and the judges are corrupt. The entire system is abused at the expense of the common man. So just because some asshole sends some other asshole to prison, they are all criminals in my mind and if one votes they should all get a vote.
HINDSIGHT IS 2020.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,257
7,016
126
Always fearmongering bullshit, aren't you?

IMO, all convicted criminals should have all their rights as a citizen restored once they have paid their debts to society in full. For some criminals who committed less serious offenses, that could be a relatively brief period of time. For those who committed more serious offenses, like murderers and rapists, that could (and often should) be never, as their debts to society may not be repayable.

Most importantly, what should be changed, and never allowed to happen again, is the travesty of disenfranchisement which the Republican party committed against America with the Drug War, where millions of Americans were permanently stripped of their right to vote because of convictions for minor drug offenses.
But of course, in your typical dishonest fashion, you are trying to conflate the issue through fearmongering, by equating restoration of voting rights for those convicted of minor drug offenses as the same as letting murderers and rapists vote from prison.
Meanwhile, the people in Florida voted to restore voting rights to felons who have paid their debts to society, and the Republican party is unlawfully blocking the will of the People there. I wonder why?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
69,036
17,184
136
Anyone want to bet that if we searched a bit we could find people claiming that getting rid of literacy tests and poll taxes was just a political maneuver to get more votes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meghan54

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
6,425
1,861
136
Same stupid row blew up here, with the European Court ruling that UK prison inmates should have the right to vote. (At least, some of them, as a general principle, though, not, necessarily all in all cases.)

I didn't care all that much either way in that case. I still can't understand why some people got so outraged by the suggestion. I doubt it would make much difference to election results - many wouldn't bother to vote, and those that did would be very unlikely to all vote the same way. I suppose maybe there might be an issue with the way the nature of the prison system means they would be artificially concentrated in particular constituencies? Could that be a problem in the US context?

I just don't think the problem in the US is _too many_ people voting or actively participating in society. I think it's a bit embarrassing that you end up locking up such a huge proporiton of the population. Seems like a symptom of failure, just as high unemployment figures can be.
 

pmv

Diamond Member
May 30, 2008
6,425
1,861
136
Well that's corruption...that is not the same thing and a whole different issue. If the 'corrupt' were held to the same standards as the rest of us, there'd be less corruption. They want to be corrupt and get caught? They get the same treatment - it's pretty much a no brainer. Instead everyone 'shurks responsibility' and protect their own.

Just saying 'hey, I know you broke a bunch of laws, but what the hell, this one politician says he'll forgive all your sins and let you out if you vote for him' sounds like a pretty plausible scenario.
You could use exactly the same argument against allowing any, arbitrarily defined, group of people to vote. Why let white people vote when they'll just vote for white supremacists?
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,620
321
126
Anyone want to bet that if we searched a bit we could find people claiming that getting rid of literacy tests and poll taxes was just a political maneuver to get more votes?
It probably WAS a political maneuver to get more votes, but it was also the right thing to do.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY